I like the 1.6 CR, averages over 50mpg in the Yeti, should be better in the Octavia as it's not the shape of a barn.

That's only based on fuel economy figures from 14k miles UK use though, no max speed runs across the continent.

Read post #28 (your own, that restarted the discussion, I agree obviously unneccessarily), then read my post #30. Read again, then do a search on 1.6CR fuel consumption on these forums and stop talking nonsense. You will find a search on 2.0CR poor fuel consumption quite hard, as a lot more people are happy with it.

2.0CR wins any day over 1.6CR in any real life competition bar the rolling road fuel economy test. 2.0CR consumption is consistent and low, though not as low as 2.0PD or 1.9PD was. 1.6CR is a varying quality engine that frequently breaks and often uses a ton of fuel for its size. For some reason DPF sensor failures are more frequent on 1.6CR than 2.0CR. I had one on my engine already.

If a car is offered with 1.6CR and 2.0CR, 2.0CR is the one to take, any day, any car usage bar rolling road nonsense. Even at the premium Skoda charges for a new one.

Edited 21 January, 201313 yr by dieselV6

If a car is offered with 1.6CR and 2.0CR, 2.0CR is the one to take, any day, any car usage bar rolling road nonsense.

I disagree.

But everyone is entitled to their opinion.

The 1.6 CR in our family has good fuel economy, the VED is £30 and it's cheaper to insure.

If you don't need the performance, it's a fine choice.

Some people want a car for A to B transport only with cheaper ownership costs.

So don't need a large diesel engine.

I disagree.

The 1.6 CR in our family has good fuel economy, the VED is £30 and it's cheaper to insure.

If you don't need the performance, it's a fine choice.

2.0CR consumption is consistent and low, though not as low as 2.0PD or 1.9PD was. 1.6CR is a varying quality engine that frequently breaks and often uses a ton of fuel for its size. For some reason DPF sensor failures are more frequent on 1.6CR than 2.0CR. I had one on my engine already.

Lucky you

Edited 21 January, 201313 yr by dieselV6

Lucky you

It's about time you changed the record FFS

So, paying for the forum and posting 21107 posts in just 4 years (now that's spamming and you are asking me to shut up?) gives you the right to write abusive posts? What a great world we live in...

If you are happy with what you've got who gives a xxxx what someone else thinks?

I don't

I don't feel the need to justify what I've bought to anyone else, nor do I feel the need to question what they have spent their hard earned on.

If we all liked the same life would be very boring and product development would be very very slow

Regards all

Juan

Sent from my iPhone using my thumbs

What a load of tosh about 1.6CRs great performance, I have this very engine in the 2012 Roomster, it is barely adequate and uses a ton of fuel , 10% more than Mk1 Octy 1.9 did in same driving (and it was a 200kg heavier car)

Hmm, that is odd. Firstly Roomster's weight as given is 1220kg, Octy is MK1 Octy combi is 1260kg, I don't see the 200kg difference. Correct me if I'm wrong. Secondly the Octy 3 1.6 engine is reported to have 99g/km of emissions, while the roomster 1.6CR is 124g/km that is 25% difference. Hence the same engine on the new octy is more economical? Or? My guess is that you have a Roomster for carrying stuff and that does add to the weight (surprised?). As the aerodynamics on an akwardly shaped Roomster are a mile worse that the streamlined Octy.

On another note - I did own a 97 Passat 1.9TDI and it was unbelievably economical, nothing has come close so far. It was just a miracle of an engine

Mk1 Octy 1.9 Elegance hatchback was ~1450kg in 1.9 110bhp diesel version with 6-spd gearbox and an "octavia panzer" skid plate fitted. I swapped (light) 5spd gearbox for (heavy) 6spd after a year. Even "bare" TDI110 Octy Elegance was 1405kg. Look up 130PD number and add 25kg for the skid plate and the rest of underbody protection

2012 Roomster is 1247kg in 1.6CR 105 version. Roomster carries same loads as Octy did, same drivers using the car. Same UK mixed use routes. Out of town and at speed fuel use is just fine, comparable with Octy which is good given Roomster's shape. But around town 1.6CR Roomie uses a lot more fuel than Octy 1.9 did.

Aerodynamics are poor on Roomster, but still brochure lists it as 10% more efficient than Mk1 Octy on all fuel numbers . It is actually 10% less efficient than the Mk 1 Octy 1.9, in mixed use, 50/50 town/countryside.

Octy 3 engines have start-stop, Roomie does not on this version, that accounts for part of the difference, at least on a rolling road...

Edited 21 January, 201313 yr by dieselV6

I appreciate you have an opinion which you are very happy to share DieselV6, but did you know so far you have over 30% of the posts on this thread.

Having an opinion based on what you personally use a car for is nice, but you don't have to force it on everyone who probably have different requirements from their vehicle.

Yes, I have had a 1.9Tdi.

I've now got a 2.0 CR and a close family member has a 1.6 CR.

Horses for courses.

Wind your necks in please gents.

Nothing gives anyone a right. Raising the same topic in every/any thread is tiresome and posting to wind people up is equally as tiresome.

This thread is on the review the OP posted. Threads work way better when discussion is kept on track to the OP. If a branch in the conversation occurs, spin up a new thread and go for it.

Cheers,

Colin.

On another note - I did own a 97 Passat 1.9TDI and it was unbelievably economical, nothing has come close so far. It was just a miracle of an engine

I would agree with that - I had a 1999 PD 115bhp Passat estate and loved that engine; over 52mpg from fillups over its life with me. It was a company car for 4 years and my sister bought it from the leasing company - still going strong...

My 1.9 110bhp Mk1 Octavia was great on fuel too, despite me not making much of an effort to drive for economy.

Newer engine designs do seem to be more sensitive to driving styles than the older ones - it's perfectly possible to get good economy from them, but you do have to make the effort to adapt.

So, paying for the forum and posting 21107 posts in just 4 years (now that's spamming and you are asking me to shut up?) gives you the right to write abusive posts? What a great world we live in...

It's not spamming, it's active use of the forum

And yes, I am prepared to pay for the upkeep of the site, as opposed to being a freeloader who doesn't - is that a crime in your book

Oh, and if I didn't mention it already, I think the 1.6 CR is a fine engine in the Fabia estate

Maybe yours was made on a Friday afternoon?

Maybe yours was made on a Friday afternoon?

At last ....................

Someone has stated the bleeding obvious!!!!!!!..............................Every car manufacture has "friday" cars..........every manufacturer even has "bad" batches of components...............

This thread is on the review the OP posted. Threads work way better when discussion is kept on track to the OP. If a branch in the conversation occurs, spin up a new thread and go for it.

100% Agreed with the above

The review stated how great 1.6CR engine is. I commented that it is not true based on direct experience and knowledge gathered from Briskoda posts on engine troubles on 1.6CR when compared to 2.0CR .

Most of the thread afterwards was a personal attack and a factless wind-up when it could have been a report of your own experiences or your reception of the review. But then it is much easier to discuss car colours :(

Edited 21 January, 201313 yr by dieselV6

Most of the thread afterwards was a personal attack and a factless wind-up when it could have been a report of your own experiences

Myself and BossFox have both given our personal experiences of said engine, and how good we feel it is, yet you still continue to rant at how bad you think it is

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but not to try to ram it down people's throats that it is the only opinion which matters, and that everyone else must be wrong

100% Agreed with the above

The review stated how great 1.6CR engine is. I commented that it is not true based on direct experience and knowledge gathered from Briskoda posts on engine troubles on 1.6CR when compared to 2.0CR .

Most of the thread afterwards was a personal attack and a factless wind-up when it could have been a report of your own experiences or your reception of the review. But then it is much easier to discuss car colours :(

Being blunt, its clear to see how many people disagree with your opinion when you look at posts from others having lots of 'likes' - against comments that ask you to move on and state that your various messages have been made on many occasions, loud and clear.

Personally, I think the 1.6tdi is a good little unit. £30 tax? Torquey enough for most tasks and cheap to run and service whilst offering that amount of space - it could certainly suit a few people I know very nicely.

True, its not going to be supreme at doing the more demanding stuff but then maybe, just maybe, not everyone wants to drive a car exactly like you do and therefore has different expectations of it. This may seem rather ironic coming from me as I do around 6-7,000 miles in Europe each year but I also realise that im not a typical UK driver in that respect and therefore wouldnt continuously preach to others about any shortcomings it had in doing it. I also dont understand how you can make so many assumptions about a car thats not even out yet, based on your previous exposure to a rather limited number of cars.

This thread is no doubt proof reading with comprehension is hard nowadays. Please read post #30 again, and again, and again. Key points:

1.6CR reception varies, some posts on it are good, some are bad, fuel economy numbers also vary a lot, plus a lot of DPF sensor failures. Cheap to run? Have you added cost of replacing sensors in? Cost of extra fuel for some unfortunate buyers?

2.0CR reception is consistently good, and fuel economy numbers are consistent and lower than worst fuel economy numbers posted for 1.6. Far fewer DPF sensor failures posted as well.

That is why 2.0CR is better than 1.6CR and that is why 1.6CR does not deserve the "The 1.6-litre TDI engine has impressed elsewhere in its numerous VAG installations, and it continues to do so here" nonsense in the review.

The 2.0CR almost guarantees positive ownership for new Octavia buyer over the risky 1.6CR and that is the point I made.

You and many other people are OK with 1.6CR performance but not everyone is. Have you read many posts complaining about 2.0CR performance? Funnily enough, of all things, I am actually pleasantly surprised with 1.6CR fuel economy at top speed of the Popemobile, it is very frugal given the car's shape, at 33mpg doing 115mph. But the rest of the time, my Roomster is a fuel waster whenever it sees town name plate, and it already required DPF sensor replacement after just 6k miles.

Your experience with 1.6CR may well be different to mine but stop trying to convince everyone that the 1.6CR is better than 2.0CR for a 1300kg car in anything outside initial price, rolling road fuel economy and the road tax, or that is as impressive as the review suggests in the rest of VW range, especially with DPF sensor replacement bills on top.

£30 tax matters only if you run a used car at low mileage, it is trifle cost for new private purchase buyers, Note that Octavia 3 is not even being delivered yet in the UK, and in the first 2-3 years of sales it'll be new purchases that will matter, not the old banger replacement for not so old banger. Main issues will be initial price, co2 rating for company car buyers, insurance, adequate equipment, performance, Not the road tax.

Finally, Octavia 3 is similar weight, wheelbase and suspension in currently listed diesel versions to Roomster, so around town is likely to consume and behave similarly with the same engine (and likely similar gearbox judging from the review comment). A lot of positive experiences posted on 1.6CR are from Fabia/Fabia Estate, cars about 100kg lighter than Roomster and 150kg lighter than the Mk3 Octavia. I won't even test drive 1.6CR on Octy 3, will wait for the 184bhp 2.0CR, but I am sure a lot of other people will test drive 1.6CR and let's see then if I was right.

Over and out. As per Colin's recommendation, if you want to discuss genuine technical details, preferably without factless statements and personal remarks, you are more than welcome in the technical guides thread, where you will no doubt find some information over and above a 1/3rd-dodgy car review content.

To Moderator, if there are any more abusive and/or denigrating posts following this one, please remove them. I hope through helping other users I earned at least that. I do not mind a 1000 further posts praising the 1.6CR engine (in my face )

Edited 21 January, 201313 yr by dieselV6

This thread is no doubt proof reading with comprehension is hard nowadays.

<snip>

To Moderator, if there are any more abusive and/or denigrating posts following this one, please remove them.

To the moderators.

Please can you remove DieselV6s post above as he included denigrating comments about other members, and he clearly supports removal of posts in this situation.

Thanks

I'm not sure why, but the word 'blinkered' just shot into my head

Maybe thrashing the goolies off a paltry 1.6 CR diesel has a worse effect on the car's quoted economy than thrashing the goolies off a 1.9 PD

If I remember the brochure correctly they only quote urban/extra urban/combined, there's no mention of a balls-out figure (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)

This link might help

http://cars.uk.msn.c...truth-about-mpg

Ive only read to this post so far.

Like the Top Gear test where they drove a prius round the test track followed by an M5 and the result was the M5 achieved much better fuel economy.

Findings where if your going to drive a car hard or fast (icluding cruising at top end autobahn speeds) use a bigger engine.

This topic has gone off the rails, take heed of Colins words of wisdom above.

Locked